Microsoft Wants To Bring Call Of Duty To Nintendo Switch

Makes sense, a lot of users there and not many good FPS titles on Switch.

I have serious doubts that it would look or run very well on Switch.

"great titles like Call of Duty from Activision Blizzard today, will continue to be available on the Sony PlayStation".

Titles... from... today? Hm...

"We’d like to bring it to Nintendo devices. We’d like to bring the other popular titles that Activision has, and ensure that they continue to be available on PlayStation, [and] that they become available on Nintendo".

This part has me thinking, do they mean bringing games to PS5 and Switch via Game Pass? Cloud version on Switch?

@Banjo- I think that’s it for sure. It’s why the wording is a little fuzzy with ‘like to’ and ‘desire’. The unspoken part seems to be.. if they allow game pass.

If you compare even Microsoft’s recent statement to continue supporting COD on PlayStation compared to the unequivocal words of Sony saying “Destiny and future games will be multi-platform”, Microsoft’s wording still feels a little vague.

@Scenes Exactly. Also, note the adjective they use thrice, "available on the Sony PS", "available on PS" and "available on Nintendo". The word has been chosen carefully. Making a game "available" on the PS and on Nintendo are phrases I'd use for a subscription.

CoD Mobile on Switch. Enough said.

@Banjo

As you say, it's very much being purposefully vague, in contrast to the matter of fact statement from PS regarding Bungie

Also, it says "One of the things we’re being very clear about as we move forward with the regulatory review" - it says to me that they're saying this whilst it's being reviewed by regulators (obviously)

All their language so far has been about a "want" and "desire" to have future Activision Blizzard games "available"

They can make then available by saying to Sony and Nintendo "they're available via Gamepass if you allow that on your system"

It's then up to Sony and Nintendo on whether it can be played on their system. MS can say "well we tried, we wanted and had a desire for it to be available but Sony and Nintendo said no thanks"

@Scenes they use the word desire and like to because at the end of the day it takes both parties to agree in order to put a game on PS or Nintendo. Microsoft cant guarantee that their games will be anywhere but Xbox and Windows store.

It would be odd for PS or Nintendo to deny call of duty on their platform but it is a possibility that is out of MS control.

People are reading way too much into the wording. It is clear that they plan to release call of duty titles on as many platforms as possible.

The message to fans is you can get the games included with your gamepass sub on our platform or pay $60-70 on other platforms. Microsoft wins either way.

That is actually reading too much. Of course Sony want Call of Duty, it's the best-selling game on PS almost every year and they called Phil the following day that the acquisition was revealed. To unravel the mystery, you have to see the words they're using but we'll only know for sure when the acquisition is complete.

@Somebody

"I have serious doubts that it would look or run very well on Switch."

Full fat CoD... I can't see that being possible.
They would have to do one of the following...

1) Stream the game to Switch via xcloud
2) Put CoD mobile on there
3) Make a bespoke "skinny" Nintendo exclusive CoD (Xbox have enough studios for someone to develop that).

@VOODOO85 Exactly.

Phil said: "Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision".

Brad said: "We are being very clear about... as we move forward with the regulatory review of this acquisition", referring to the acquisition period. For the future he says, "available on the PS", "available on Nintendo", which is a term that perfectly suits subscription as opposed to other terms such as "multiplatform".

They both confirm the current deals but they say things like "we would like" and "availability" for future games. That desire and that availability suit Game Pass on other platforms because they know that Sony wants Call of Duty. Thus, if availability meant multiplatform, they wouldn't say "we would like".

The only thing that they are really confirming is that they'll respect the current deals but they are not confirming anything beyond that. They are being deliberately ambiguous about the future. I'm not going to say that I know what will happen but if they are being ambiguous the only logical reason is that they don't know if Sony and Nintendo will agree to their terms. If they don't know if they'll agree it's because those terms might be Game Pass Cloud. They are not being specific because they don't own the Activision group yet and Brad literally mentions the regulatory review.

Releasing actual 'ports' that run natively on those 'hardware' SKU's or bringing 'Cloud' services (Game Pass for PS/Switch) to be able to 'stream' those games running on 'Series X' hardware in the cloud?

We have seen a few games released on Switch that are only playable by streaming - Guardians of the Galaxy for example and based on 'recent' games, no way could 'CoD' run on Switch at 60fps but could run on a Series X in the 'cloud' and stream to Switch.

Bringing Activision games, maybe some Bethesda (Doom, Quake, ES6 etc) to PS5/Switch doesn't 'necessarily' mean those Devs will be making and then porting/optimising etc those games for Playstation/Switch hardware to 'sell', it could mean that they want 'Game Pass' on Sony/Nintendo hardware so they 'can' bring those games 'easily' to those platforms.

A curated list of Game Pass games specific to each Platform, maybe not including Halo, Forza or Gears for example would still 'fit' with MS's 'intention' to bring those games to Playstation/Switch hardware as they say.

Nintendo and Sony have their own 'streaming' services - with Sony expected to refresh 'PSNow' to whatever 'Spartacus' is. Those too could come to Xbox and whilst Spartacus may not have the latest Sony 'exclusives', they could have Destiny, Days Gone, Horizon: Zero Dawn, God of War and whatever other games (FF7, Forspoken, Demon Souls etc?) that are on PC, its still enabling MS/Sony/Nintendo to 'reach' many more gamers and put their games on their rivals platform without any major cost/headaches of developing, porting and optimising for multiple and very different Hardware architecture.

Also, if its all running on the 'same' hardware in the cloud, then you have a 'consistent' image/performance quality across most platforms and as MS use 'Series X' hardware, that would mean all those who can only 'stream' it, at least get the Series X version.

@Banjo- yes Sony does want Call of Duty but Microsoft cant say it is guaranteed to be on someone else's platform hence the "desire" to keep it on PS.

If Microsoft wanted to eventually make it exclusive dont you think they would have a different message. They are doing nothing to dissuade people from locking themselves into the ps5 ecosystem for the next year+. They could just say nothing and people would assume they will need an xbox to play COD. No. They are clear as day, they plan to release the franchise on even more platforms than it is currently available on.

Like you said it is the best selling game on PS, they want a cut of that. They don't want those millions of people to decide between their favorite console and a game. Most will probably stick with the console.

if its anything like apex for the switch then PASS wish companies would stop shoe stringing next gen and well current gen games onto the switch they look horrendous and without game chat at all its kinda annoying trying to play competitively

@Somebody if i remember they used similar words and terms for the bethesda aquisition... they use words like DESIRE as they are vague, they use those words so when going through regulation its less likely to be called a monopoly,,, but just like bethesda purchase once its over they will follow through on current contracts but once not in contract will go exclusive... and i would be shocked if down the line cod goes in some form or fashion exclusive whether its content or modes...kinda like sony has been doing to MS for years with cod.

@Banjo- I think it's important to mention that Brad specifically mentions the Minecraft situation, which to me suggests a very different arrangement than Bethesda. In that instance they very clearly said they want Bethesda games "everywhere that gamepass exists". The messaging here seems very different to me. It wouldn't surprise if they just make Acti games exclusive to Gamepass, but if we take what they're saying at face value it seems unlikely

Good news that future overwatch and dua lo games will be on nintendo, hopefully horrible overpriced cloud versions. Also can't see call of duty running on the Nintendo switch, maybe the mobile version would....just about

@Blessed_Koz

With bethesda they said "existing games will remain where they are." Meaning they wont pull already released games from the PS store.

In no case did they ever say they desire to release starfield, elder scrolls 6, etc. on Sony. They never mentioned a specific game or platform in the bethesda messaging.

They are very specific here, the call of duty franchise will continue to be released on as many platforms as possible, specifically mentioning Sony and now Switch. Maybe spyro or something will be exclusive but in terms of COD they are telling us exactly what the plan is.

We already know MS talked to Nintendo about Gamepass through a court filling. Also Phil said Sony and Nintendo did not want game pass which means MS wants it there and they talked with them. No secret.

MS wants out of the hardware business and wants Gamepass on everything like consoles, TV's, phones, tablets PC etc.

Hardware business is a money loss especially with the chip shortages. Money is made on software.

I am guessing MS want to be the distributor for Sony and Nintendo to through game pass. Makes sense for Sony since they want their titles on PC and this is a easy way for them. Nintendo is a funny bird and does their own thing. Would they want there games on the PC and cloud and not have to invest themselves? Nintendo is so far behind with online already.

This is absolutely because of them wanting to avoid pressure from regulators by confirming they'll release AB games on PlayStation and also Nintendo.

For Xbox gamers, this is not good news. More resources will now be allocated to these versions and it's even less likely that Activision studios will be freed up from only making CoD, because now they need more studios to make games for these platforms. Unless Microsoft is willing to create more studios to make these versions, expect less different and unique games from Activision. Or at least not as many compared to if they were only making games for Xbox and PC.

@PapaGlitch Yes, he mentioned that, among other things. They are being ambiguous with terms like "availability", "would like", "wish"... Brad also mentioned the "regulatory review" (key words) and Phil said "through the term of any existing agreement". They are not confirming anything multiplatform beyond that. When they talk Call of Duty they say "today", "current", "will continue to be available"... They are being clear about the present but ambiguous about the future. They might be pointing at Game Pass Cloud if Sony and Nintendo agree. Porting games to those platforms (PS5 doesn't run on Windows and Switch runs on old mobile technology) would be a waste of resources and would reduce the value of Game Pass and the number of potential subscribers.

One of the things we’re being very clear about as we move forward with the regulatory review of this acquisition is that great titles like Call of Duty from Activision Blizzard today, will continue to be available on the Sony PlayStation.

That is about today's games.

We’d like to bring it to Nintendo devices. We’d like to bring the other popular titles that Activision has, and ensure that they continue to be available on PlayStation, [and] that they become available on Nintendo.

That is ambiguous. Game Pass Cloud?

Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision.

Existing agreements.

And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business.

Available after the existing agreements... Agreed games. Continue to enjoy the games they love... What games, how? Support Nintendo... How?

I think that they will be straightforward about future games once the acquisition is completed.

I doubt Microsoft has anything to worry about with regulators. The 2nd most owned stock by congress members in 2021 was Microsoft.

@LtSarge

Call of duty is a yearly cash cow. Think of it as funding for other studios to take risks. If Microsoft knows it will have a success there they will be more likely to approve wild ideas elsewhere.

Xbox should never be in a spot again where all resources are tied up in halo, gears, forza because they were the only safe bets. They now have a yearly safe bet.

This is a win for xbox and xbox owners.

My Xbox + Nintendo combination has kept me happy for years.

Long, long, long, long overdue. Bring it over so we can see it sell very well, making Activision look like braindead morons for ignoring Switch for so long.

@Banjo- it would hardly be a waste of resources to port games to PS5 when they sell, in the case of COD, in their millions for £70 a pop. Not saying you're wrong and again I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being the case, but I'm just saying the wording continually seems to be very different than what they had with Bethesda

@Somebody I think a lot of people, including me, were expecting that CoD wouldn't be a yearly release anymore after the acquisition is finalised because the Activision studios that work on CoD have so much talent and they're wasting it on Call of Duty. Since the idea of Game Pass is to have all kinds of games on the service in order to appeal to everyone, it would prove beneficial to free up these studios and have them work on other IPs. But that's looking even less likely now.

However, I do want to add that if this is the only way for Microsoft to appease regulators in order for them to continue making more acquisitions of companies that don't have cash cows, then I might be on board with this approach. For example, if Microsoft acquires Sega next, which have IPs that don't generate anywhere near the amount of revenue compared to franchises like CoD, and can fund their dormant IPs, then this could be a good strategy indeed.

@LtSarge

I think there will be exclusives from this deal and I imagine xbox is thrilled with the IP they are getting. I just think Activision knew that this was the most profitable way to approach call of duty. I doubt microsoft would tinker too much with that formula. Any gap in releases would mean less profit. All statements about it suggest they want a piece of that playstation and switch money.

I'm kind of surprised by his remarks, tbh.

@PapaGlitch Most of those sales are on PS4 so we don't know how many people would play them on other platforms. At the end of the day, many Call of Duty players only play that game so they don't mind the platform. They would play it on Xbox or PC once the last-gen is abandoned (soon). Obviously, PS4 is the most popular console of the last generation so it has been the default choice until now. We don't know what will happen this generation and you make good points as well but only time will tell what exactly Microsoft will do about future Activision games since both Phil and Brad are being ambiguous. They are only straightforward about the current agreements. Their wishes might be related to Game Pass Cloud and not multiplatform development.

Forza Horizon 5 is the best-performing entry because of the Game Pass projection. Call of Duty should be even more popular without needing dedicated ports. Modern Warfare, the best-selling Call of Duty game, shipped 30m. Forza Horizon 5 has over 20m players and over 1m pre-orders without multiplatform ports. Call of Duty would me a massive success on Game Pass alone.

I think the 360-era COD games would be great for the Nintendo Switch.

@Somebody my point being Sony don’t say that? Why don’t they use the same language? Why did Sony come out and say. Multiplatform now and in future. Why not, we desire to make it multi platform? Time will tell.

@Scenes if xbox wanted to make it exclusive they wouldnt be saying anything about it right now. Every time they do an interview and allude to the games remaining on Sony that tells perspective ps5 buyers that it is okay to make that ps5 purchase. If they make it exclusive a few years down the road there will be millions of people who have locked themselves into ps5 because xbox went out of their way to say they intend to put COD on PS5. That method of pretending they are coming to Sony now and announcing they are xbox exclusive later would only benefit Sony.

Sony is saying that Bungie games will remain on xbox because Bungie is remaining independent of Sony after the deal. It is ultimately up to Bungie where there games are not Sony. Xbox cant officially announce a plan until the deal is finalized sometime next year. They are being very clear about their intentions with call of duty despite all the "read between the lines" comments among fans.

@Somebody The Sony / Bungie deal isn’t finalised. It’s still going through like the Xbox one. But look, it clearly means a lot to you these games appear on PS5. Hope it works out for you. 👍

@Scenes it clearly means alot to microsoft that the games remain on PS5. They are saying so every week. Hopefully it works out for them. I imagine it will, it is the best selling game every year.

I haven't bought a call of duty game in a long time but I do own a series x and ps5. This really doesnt mean anything to me other than the annoyance of seeing people read a direct quote and try to reason that they actually mean the exact opposite of what they are saying.

@Somebody we just see it different ways. I think you really have to twist yourself in knots to see what you’re reading into it. Especially as I pointed out, the Sony deal hasn’t gone through, it’s just announced; so why is their wording different? You didn’t really address that when I pointed it out.

This reminds me of the endless discussions I had with people in comments when they’d say Starfield was ‘clearly’ going to be on PS5 and Xbox was saying it clear as day it would be on Multi-platform.

We aren’t going to change each others minds, so let’s leave it here. At least you’re good with both consoles whatever it comes out on. Happy gaming. 👍

Just put cod mobile on console I'd much rather play that than warzone & it doesn't take up a stupid amount of storage

CoD was on Wii, and even WiiU, so Activision not putting CoD on Switch until now actually has been the real oddity in a lot of ways. Maybe they mean the cloud version, they probably do, but it's not that unthinkable an idea, really so long as MS intends to run Activision as an owned publisher more than a totally internal Xbox studio.

@LtSarge TBH I think it's a guarantee that they'll be changing how CoD is handled. There's no reason to do annual releases and tie up the studios. None of the other of the top online games have annual releases other than the sports games, and that's due to the roster/licensing issues partly. Fortnite, Pubg, Apex, DOTA, now Halo Infinite, GTAV, Minecraft of course, Rocket League, all of them just have a continuous version. MMOs have annual large retail expansions, but CoD isn't an MMO. Destiny has the annual retail release MMO-style, but Destiny is a pseudo-MMO. COD is the odd one out along with BF, but BF just crashed and burned.

My guess is the Activision studios are mostly repurposed to make other games, some of which are Xbox exclusive, some are multiplat using other Activision brands. Instead of all the studios being on rotating CoD schedule, bad as 343i is, the 343i model makes sense. Open a NEW studio (or convert one of the CoD Studios like IW) into being Duty's Call Interactive or something, grow that studio with new staff into a totally new, large studio that handles the extended 3 platform seasonal CoD, and use the more nimble studios for more nimble products. MS has the resources to build a single franchise studio rather than use multi-purpose studios all for a single franchise, and they've been doing that for their biggest franchises.

There's no reason to assume that what they just bought with Activision is the total spend they're putting into it. They can use that as a springboard to "organically grow" (heh) those studios into a bigger studios they need. Activision, humorously, wasn't big enough for what they did. They needed all their variety studios just to churn out one series because one studio wasn't big enough to do it, and were in the process of merging all those studios more or less. MS doesn't need to limit themselves, and very likely won't. They have utility for the variety and the money to grow sections as needed.

@Scenes

Sonys wording is different because as part of that deal bungie remains independent and it is up to bungie where their games release. Sony doesn't have a choice.

With bethesda they never mentioned a franchise or platform but said the games will be wherever gamepass is. Why not say that same thing here? They are spelling it out, call of duty will continue to release on Sony and probably come to switch now as well. I dont see how them saying their desire is to release call of duty games on playstation can be construed as anything but they plan to release the games on sony. It's not some conspiracy that they need to get gamepass on PS for this to happen. It's not some bargaining chip to get something else. It is plainly that xbox wants to profit off copies sold to PS users.

It's crazy that you are saying you have to twist in knots see this my way when I am taking the xbox quotes at face value. Everyone else is saying that it is some smoke and mirrors and that the statements from xbox are not accurate as to their actual plans.

@Scenes What you say makes total sense.

@Somebody you don’t have to convince everyone to your point of view. We disagree. That’s cool. Be boring if we all thought the same thing. Let’s get back to playing games. 👍

@Scenes the sad part is that this discussion will continue until well after the deal is final. At least 3 different quotes reiterating how much they want the games to be released on PS in the future hasn't stopped the suspicion. Xbox employees will continue to be asked the same exact questions and articles will be written every time.

@Somebody really not sure what to say. I’ve suggested we move on a few times now. This is my last post on it.

You don’t have to ‘make’ everyone agree with you. It doesn’t matter at the end of the day. Big companies are gonna do what they gonna do.

Happy gaming. 👍

Too much money in CoD to make it exclusive

@Banjo- thanks. To me too ☺️

Give me the Activision Atari 2600 collection! Lol no seriously! That would be awesome 😎